Entirely predictable

Knut Rognes (knrognes@online.no)
Tue, 06 Apr 1999 18:20:16 +0200


(jef sendte den før i dag men glemte subject-felt og derved ble det litt
rart. sender den på nytt)

apropos KVJ's sitat fra (London?) Times:

SACEUR Wesley Clark sa 27 mars 1999 (to dager etter bombingen startet):

"We're right on track with the plan," General Clark said. "We're already
attacking these headquarters, attacking command centers." He said it was
"entirely predictable" that the Serbian campaign against villages would
intensify with the NATO assault.

Kilde NY Times (27 mars 1999), se


Forøvrig legger jeg ved en uttalelse fra Noam Chomsky (i diskusjonsgruppen
Chomsky-chat på Z-Net) fra 4. april:

Unidentified, asking `what would be the (morally)
right thing for NATO to do at this moment? The
obvious answer is to stop bombing immediately, but
then the Kosovars could be worse off than before
the bombing, would you agree? Although morally
unprincipled and illegal, could continued NATO
attacks against the Yugoslav military forces at
least significantly reduce the latter's threat to
the Kosovars? That is, although the initial NATO
attacks did disasterously help to accelerate the
Yugoslav military aggression against Kosovo, and
so were tragically wrong, now that the current
situation has been created, would not the "least
of evils" be for NATO to try to deter and disable
the Yugoslav military from further, worse

It's quite true that termination of the bombing
now would leave the Kosovars worse off than before
the bombing, because they are worse off than
before. The same is true of every other course of
action, including continuation of the bombing
would. As for future actions, there are none that
I have heard proposed, or can imagine, that would
not leave the Kosovars worse off than before the
humanitarian catastrophe that followed the threat
of bombing, the removal of UN observers, and then
(massively) the reality of the bombing, a
consequence of the bombing that the US/NATO
general called "entirely predictable" (too strong,
of course: nothing is THAT predictable -- merely
very likely).
Could continued bombing "significantly reduce the
[Yugoslav military] threat to the Kosovars?" No
one can say, with any confidence. It's also
possible that bombs in Washington would reduce the
threat to the Kosovars, by impelling Washington to
stop the bombing that have been a factor (probably
a major factor) in escalation of the atrocities
against them. Should we therefore take bombs to
the White House? One thing we can say with
confidence: bombing will kill a lot of people.
Beyond that, all bets are off. A very strong
argument is required to justify extreme violence,
not merely "maybe it will help" (or maybe it will
make things much worse). You say you find it hard
to counter the argument. But that's not quite
right: there's no argument to counter; one can't
counter an argument that has not been given. The
burden of proof is always on those who advocate
massive violence; if they can't meet it, then they
are refuted. Period.

Hilsen Knut Rognes